From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 26 09:27:10 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EE031065692; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:27:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il) Received: from cs1.cs.huji.ac.il (cs1.cs.huji.ac.il [132.65.16.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23BB68FC1E; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:27:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il) Received: from pampa.cs.huji.ac.il ([132.65.80.32]) by cs1.cs.huji.ac.il with esmtp id 1Kj9bR-000H7t-0g; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:27:09 +0300 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.2 To: Jeremy Chadwick In-reply-to: <20080926081806.GA19055@icarus.home.lan> References: <20080926081806.GA19055@icarus.home.lan> Comments: In-reply-to Jeremy Chadwick message dated "Fri, 26 Sep 2008 01:18:06 -0700." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:27:08 +0300 From: Danny Braniss Message-ID: Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bad NFS/UDP performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:27:10 -0000 > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 10:04:16AM +0300, Danny Braniss wrote: > > Hi, > > There seems to be some serious degradation in performance. > > Under 7.0 I get about 90 MB/s (on write), while, on the same machine > > under 7.1 it drops to 20! > > Any ideas? > > 1) Network card driver changes, could be, but at least iperf/tcp is ok - can't get udp numbers, do you know of any tool to measure udp performance? BTW, I also checked on different hardware, and the badness is there. > > 2) This could be relevant, but rwatson@ will need to help determine > that. > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2008-September/045109.html gut feeling is that it's somewhere else: Writing 16 MB file BS Count /---- 7.0 ------/ /---- 7.1 -----/ 1*512 32768 0.16s 98.11MB/s 0.43s 37.18MB/s 2*512 16384 0.17s 92.04MB/s 0.46s 34.79MB/s 4*512 8192 0.16s 101.88MB/s 0.43s 37.26MB/s 8*512 4096 0.16s 99.86MB/s 0.44s 36.41MB/s 16*512 2048 0.16s 100.11MB/s 0.50s 32.03MB/s 32*512 1024 0.26s 61.71MB/s 0.46s 34.79MB/s 64*512 512 0.22s 71.45MB/s 0.45s 35.41MB/s 128*512 256 0.21s 77.84MB/s 0.51s 31.34MB/s 256*512 128 0.19s 82.47MB/s 0.43s 37.22MB/s 512*512 64 0.18s 87.77MB/s 0.49s 32.69MB/s 1024*512 32 0.18s 89.24MB/s 0.47s 34.02MB/s 2048*512 16 0.17s 91.81MB/s 0.30s 53.41MB/s 4096*512 8 0.16s 100.56MB/s 0.42s 38.07MB/s 8192*512 4 0.82s 19.56MB/s 0.80s 19.95MB/s 16384*512 2 0.82s 19.63MB/s 0.95s 16.80MB/s 32768*512 1 0.81s 19.69MB/s 0.96s 16.64MB/s Average: 75.86 33.00 the nfs filer is a NetWork Appliance, and is in use, so i get fluctuations in the measurements, but the relation are similar, good on 7.0, bad on 7.1 Cheers, danny